Megilla 17 Dying at a Righteous Age, Reciting the Megilla and the Amida in Order

Perek I ends with the rabbis' calculations of the ages of some of our patriarchs.  We know that ages are not mentioned of all of our ancestors.  The rabbis had determined that only the most righteous of people were listed with their ages when they died. But Ishmael's years were mentioned as well.  This leads to a conversation about his behaviour later in life.  Did Esau not marry into this family?  And perhaps Ishmael became truly righteous in his later years?  The rabbis do not mention whether Ishmael might have been righteous early on, too.  They prefer to create consistency in other ways.

Perek II begins with a new Mishna.   It teaches that the Megilla must be read in order, without reciting it by heart.  In addition, it must be read in a language that one understands and/or in Hebrew - Ashurit.  We can read the Megilla with breaks.  As well, we are permitted to read the Megilla with commentary and corrections as long as we intend to fulfill our obligation at that time.  Finally, the Megilla used to recite from must be written in Ashurit and written in ink on parchment.

The Gemara notes similarities and differences between reciting the Megilla in order and reciting Hallel, the Shema and the Amida in order.

The rabbis speak about the recitation of the Torah.  What language should be used?  They note that when the word "hear" is used, in particular with the recitation of the Shema, we understand that one should b able to understand its words.  

In understanding the order of the Amida, we learn that a midrash suggests each of the 18 prayers refers to a generation of the Jewish people in order of history.  Thus we begin with a prayer for the patriarchs (and matriarchs] and end with a prayer for moshiach.   Our daf ends with the rabbis continuing to justify the placement of each blessing, ending with the ninth blessing.

It strikes me that much of our tradition is dependent upon deep respect for those who have come before us.  The rabbis look up and down for any way that they might understand that logic of their predecessors.  There must be a way to understand those words, even if they have to turn to magical thinking.  The opposite happens in our modern societies.  We look to easily disprove the truth that came before so that we can replace it with our own, obviously more clever thinking.  I am a big believer in multiple truths; in critical thinking.  But somehow it seems as though we have moved a bit too far away from a place of respect.  In order to critique something, shouldn't we have to know what that thing is?  How can we critique traditional Torah law without truly looking at its origins and what it says?  Without assuming that those who have come to this in the past were smart, and creative, and challenging to dismiss?